37 replies to this topic

[xRaeder]

I've been saying that the map modes are poorly designed since CB. No one listened. No one is listening now. Trust me.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

xRaeder, on 24 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

I've been saying that the map modes are poorly designed since CB. No one listened. No one is listening now. Trust me.

Actually a lot of us have been saying that, and we complained for BIGGER maps since the start. This is why we now have Alpine and Desert, which are rightfully big, unlike the original PoS maps. You then say no one is listening? Yet Piranha basically gave us bigger maps, as requested?

[Major Derps]

Malfar, on 24 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

If PGI doesn't start putting in more effort on game design, and a little less time on frivolous stuff like cockpit items and skins, then I'll drop this game like a bad habit. And I'm the demographic you'd like to have the most... money to burn.

Please PGI give me a reason to stay and invest...

Yeah, this only pops up in every third thread (even one of mine), it really won't suddenly make PGI go 'oh ****, he's gunna leave guys, give him what he wants'...trust me, I've tried.

Malfar, on 24 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

The amount of times I have dropped with a group that understood the game type is far and few in between. Seems like when I play an Assault game, someone on my or the other team caps.. a waste of time. If I play a Conquest game, my team acts like it is an assault game and attacks the enemy in one area having no concerns for the caps. It frustrates me because in most cases it results in my team losing.

It's free to play, so as much as you or I hate it, we are always going to get this...regardless of game modes

[Sephlock]

http://mwomercs.com/...21#entry2118221

[Caladan Nix]

hammerreborn, on 24 March 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Why? TDM is terrible. I'd just queue in my spider and find as many hidden places to hide and ruin the other teams fun.

I know PLENTY of good hiding places in desert that I don't think anyone would ever find me at.

Meanwhile, you can just use that spider to ninja-cap everything in Conquest since the matchmaker no longer feels the need to guarantee your rival team a fast light anymore...

[Malfar]

MoonUnitBeta, on 24 March 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

Holy crap just let them finish making the game.

I have decided to do just that.. I've played my last match after 1337/2000 for a total of 3337 matches, I have played my last match. I'll wait until I hear news of a complete version before I decide to return or not, but I'm sure by then there will be bigger and better things to play by a company that knows how to develop videogames. Have fun, and Happy hunting..

[Zanathan]

The latest Ask the Devs answer was disappointing in the fact that they don't believe a team death match will be considered currently.

Quote

Oy of MidWorld: Are there any plans for an optional real Team DeathMatch gamemode, without basecapping or resource collection?

A: We’re toyed around with the idea for a while. At this point we do not feel it adds enough value and will segment the user base further.

I don't agree with their reasoning as they have items in the works that will segment the players such as 3rd person and the different regions. I don't see how this will make it worse.

[Master Maniac]

Yeah, that statement from the developers is a bit of a hammerblow. I was under the impression that these half-baked gametypes were placeholder. My philosophy is simple: if you want to go back and forth from one point to another, and sit on your butt to win, then go play Battlefield. It's a wretched, miserable idea, and it's made even worse when you're piloting a ponderous walking tank. Walking tanks, I might add, that are BUILT FOR COMBAT. You know. MechWARRIOR? Not MechStroller. Not MechSitter.

Too often "conquest" (ugh) in larger maps degrades into musical chairs. Slow, miserable, time-wasting musical chairs. And it's dreadful. Battles are decided by a trial of arms, the last 'Mechs standing, not by who leaves the largest foot plate indentation in the dirt. "Stand to win" is awful, and I feel like my time is wasted every time I hop into a match, load up a game, and go through the start-up sequence just to have some base-rushing no-skill jerk team run to a point, idle, and claim a "win" within minutes.

If you MUST have objectives that go beyond "destroy the other team," then at least mix it up a little bit with something that requires a little...I don't know...involvement? Maybe each team could have a DropShip that needs to be destroyed in order to secure a win? Or maybe when one team "caps" the other team's base, instead of winning they get aerial support to push the fight in their favor? Enemy mechs would be highlighted by fighter recon, and limited airstrikes could be called in. It's better than an auto-win.

And in order to prevent light mechs darting around, hiding, and generally wasting everyone's time when the rest of their team is destroyed, maybe the devs could introduce a "survival bonus" that would entice players to leave the mission boundaries when a fight goes bad. Let's say you'd only get the survival bonus if you've killed another player, to prevent obvious abuse by farmers. Winning players who survive would also get the bonus.

In any case, the focus should be on enticing players to get out there and hop into some actual combat, rather than just run to a spot and sit in place. It's really ruining the game.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 24 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Yes lets all sit around defending our bases and never move out of the square. Because thats so much fun.

There is a big difference between having a plan to defend your base and merely standing on it.

Lately, I've been seeing the following pattern more often in PUG Assault games:

• 2 go out to scout either side of the map
  
• 4 group up and move along the center line up to a point that's still within striking distance of the base
  
• 2 stay midpoint between the 4-man group and base
  
• once scouts report contact with the enemy, team decides where to go and/or what to do

Edited by Mystere, 24 March 2013 - 11:21 PM.

[idle crow]

The oldest and most simple game mode of team death match is also missing. Given the base cap break in games and don't count down. It take all of 5mins to create a team death match mode...

[Shively]

You people seem to be forgetting that Conquest was never supposed to be about capping points, to begin with, and that that tidbit came right from the horse's mouth. Remember that nice, lengthy, PC Gamer article that we got bonus paints and cockpit items from where they laid it all out - [REDACTED]

The problem of bad game mode design goes much further than the thread has even begun to discuss at this point.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Khobai, on 24 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Agreed.

Most people hate it when base assault degrades into base capping

And then you have ***** players who are like "defend your base yo" who fail to realize that if both teams sat around defending their base, there wouldnt be a game.

how often does this happen? never cause there's things called scouts who track enemy movements and it's easily known who camps and who doesn't. stop trying to make out that so much is broken on a hypothetical.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 24 March 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Malfar, on 24 March 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I have decided to do just that.. I've played my last match after 1337/2000 for a total of 3337 matches, I have played my last match. I'll wait until I hear news of a complete version before I decide to return or not, but I'm sure by then there will be bigger and better things to play by a company that knows how to develop videogames. Have fun, and Happy hunting..

Take care. Hope you come back, and hopefully there's an improvement.

[Izzob]

Ok say you removed the capping zones, what happens if you have 1 mech with its weapons destroyed and another with no ammo on diff teams...and 10mins on the timer... what then sit and stare at each other till time runs out? In other games where you player a person not a mech its an easy fix you just put weapon deposits around the map so you can rearm.

I guess you could add a re-arm point that repairs and rearms a % of you're mech and add a zone around it so you have to leave it for a certain amount of time before going back for another repair/re-arm or make it a one of thing.

And I have to say having had it happen a number of times, loading into an assault match and having it base capped before anyone has even fired a shot is really bugging and almost all of the players on both teams hate it all but the one raven or what ever light pilot has capped it. Surly if you want to cap go and play conquest.. always thought thats why its there tbh.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Malfar, on 24 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

The amount of times I have dropped with a group that understood the game type is far and few in between. Seems like when I play an Assault game, someone on my or the other team caps.. a waste of time. If I play a Conquest game, my team acts like it is an assault game and attacks the enemy in one area having no concerns for the caps. It frustrates me because in most cases it results in my team losing.

If PGI doesn't start putting in more effort on game design, and a little less time on frivolous stuff like cockpit items and skins, then I'll drop this game like a bad habit. And I'm the demographic you'd like to have the most... money to burn.

Please PGI give me a reason to stay and invest...

they dont want to put more game modes in because theyre afraid itll split the playerbase
In response to a question about splitting the playerbase with 3rd person view:

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

This is one of our largest concerns. In fact, it's one of the reasons we don't just jam in more game modes.

Snaloe, on 25 March 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Ok say you removed the capping zones, what happens if you have 1 mech with its weapons destroyed and another with no ammo on diff teams...and 10mins on the timer... what then sit and stare at each other till time runs out?

You remember when capping meant you got less money than killing the other team? I do; it spawned funny lights running to obscure corners of the map and shutting down. It still happens now.

xRaeder, on 24 March 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

I've been saying that the map modes are poorly designed since CB. No one listened. No one is listening now. Trust me.

Just like they're listening to our input of how we dont want 3rdPOV. http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/
(third reply in the thread)

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 25 March 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[Marj]

Master Maniac, on 24 March 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

If you MUST have objectives that go beyond "destroy the other team," then at least mix it up a little bit with something that requires a little...I don't know...involvement? Maybe each team could have a DropShip that needs to be destroyed in order to secure a win? Or maybe when one team "caps" the other team's base, instead of winning they get aerial support to push the fight in their favor? Enemy mechs would be highlighted by fighter recon, and limited airstrikes could be called in. It's better than an auto-win.

And in order to prevent light mechs darting around, hiding, and generally wasting everyone's time when the rest of their team is destroyed, maybe the devs could introduce a "survival bonus" that would entice players to leave the mission boundaries when a fight goes bad. Let's say you'd only get the survival bonus if you've killed another player, to prevent obvious abuse by farmers. Winning players who survive would also get the bonus.

I think spotting the entire enemy team would be too powerful, you'd still have to defend your base. Having a base cap that provides some sort of tactical bonus sounds good though. Didn't Mech Assault have sensor towers that you could cap? Maybe have something similar that spots any enemy within 1km.

Survivor bonus requiring a kill sounds good, but only for the last man standiung on the losing team. Don't want to give any more incentive for people not to get into the fight.

[tenderloving]

Khobai, on 24 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Agreed.

Most people hate it when base assault degrades into base capping

And then you have ***** players who are like "defend your base yo" who fail to realize that if both teams sat around defending their base, there wouldnt be a game.

Surely nobody is that dumb! Show me an example of one person who is stupid enough to believe that is a valid argument!

hammerreborn, on 24 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

You know a great way to not get your base capped? Stop running in ******* D-DCs then bitching "oh why won't people just brawl with my slow ***. I'm only 100 tons! This game is so unfair!"

Learn2play

:\

[Forestal]

Bluten, on 24 March 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Actually a lot of us have been saying that, and we complained for BIGGER maps since the start. This is why we now have Alpine and Desert, which are rightfully big, unlike the original PoS maps. You then say no one is listening? Yet Piranha basically gave us bigger maps, as requested?

The Games Modes are poorly designed VIS-A-VIS the maps-- or to be specific, it is the random "tossing" of Conquest vs Assault Modes onto BOTH large and small maps, PLUS the 8v8 match-making system which is poorly integrated... all of which is arguably just ONE meta-Game Mode, which the Devs came up with so as "not to segment/fragment the community".

E.g.
1) Assault only really makes sense for FIBUA (Fighting-In-Build-Up-Areas) in Frozen City or River City-- because when you have only ONE base/objective to work on, the smaller maps and high concentration of cover makes for intense cover-to-cover, run-n-gun fights.

2) Large Maps only makes sense when you have 12v12 or at least a match-making system which balances out the weight classes-- so that you have enough numbers and variety to work with, assigning some mechs to scout and others ambush choke points, etc.

P.S. Please don't tell me about how fighting was typically done in open-fields (i.e. a flat grid) for the TT game, where lrms are the support and brawlers are the... blah x 3.


TL;DR: In fact, I look at every one of the maps we have and think "mission-based objectives"... they are more like mini-RPG levels than FPS shooter sections, because there's so much detail and variety when it comes to getting from point A to point B-- but all we have are some half-assed, err I mean "hybrid" game modes like "Mutual Assault" and "5-Point Conquest" being shoe-horned onto those maps.

Edited by Forestal, 25 March 2013 - 06:17 PM.